IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dime] [dime] #48: Setting M-Bit gives wrong semantics

"dime issue tracker" <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 07 February 2014 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47591A04B2 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:10:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7IkOWU52zC6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89C11A015B for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53346 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1WBtdF-0000OV-3h; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:10:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com
X-Trac-Project: dime
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 22:10:45 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/48
Message-ID: <057.cca16f1268987a869c0055728f3d7793@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 48
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, dime@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: ben@nostrum.com, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #48: Setting M-Bit gives wrong semantics
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: dime@ietf.org
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 22:10:53 -0000

#48: Setting M-Bit gives wrong semantics

 Multiple sections indicate that a new application that incorporates DOIC
 can set the M-Bit on DOIC sub-avps. I don't think this ever does the right
 thing.

 IIUC, If a node that otherwise supports DOIC encounters a DOIC avp that it
 doesn't understand, and has the M-Bit set, it will cause a failure of the
 application command. I don't think we want the lack of support of some
 DOIC feature or extension to ever cause an application-level failure.  I
 think we are looking for something that would just cause the OLR to be
 ignored.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-docdt-dime-
  ben@nostrum.com        |  ovli@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-       |    Version:  1.0
  docdt-dime-ovli        |   Keywords:
 Severity:  Active WG    |
  Document               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/48>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email